论文部分内容阅读
2009年9月,在美国对我国轮胎产品实施特保措施后,我国随即在WTO争端解决机制对美起诉。由于《入世议定书》第16条中关于进口迅速增加、实质损害的规定给美方留下了较大的自由裁量空间,因此,专家组推翻美国国际贸易委员会裁定关于进口迅速增加、实质损害结论的可能性较小。基于此,中方应倾全力举证和论述中国轮胎产品不是实质损害的“一个重要原因”。中方能否说服专家组对“一个重要原因”措词所隐含的因果关系采取严格的标准,对本案结果至关重要。
In September 2009, after the United States implemented special safeguard measures on China’s tire products, China immediately prosecuted the United States with the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. As Article 16 of the “Accession Protocol” stipulates that the rapid increase in imports and substantive damages leave the United States with more room for discretion, the panel reversed the possibility that the United States International Trade Commission ruled that the rapid increase in imports may actually cause damage to the conclusions Sex is small. Based on this, China should make every effort to prove and discuss the fact that China’s tire products are not substantially detrimental to the “one important reason.” Whether the Chinese side can persuade the panel of experts to adopt strict standards on the causal relations implied by the wording of “one important reason” is of crucial importance to the outcome of the present case.